Pakistan put a peace plan on the table to try to halt the war between the United States and Iran, proposing a two-step deal that would pause the fighting and give both sides 20 days to work out a long term agreement. Pakistan pulled this strategy together overnight and sent it to both countries with the aim of opening the Strait of Hormuz right away while diplomats continue discussions (Reuters). This developed into a two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran that expires on April 22. On top of the time constraint, the peace plan is experiencing pressure from the recently failed talks with Islamabad.
The discourse from both sides reflects a lack of accountability for the failure of these talks. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance sat through more than 21 hours of negotiations before he left, claiming that Iran would not commit to giving up its nuclear objectives. Iran’s lead negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, avoided addressing the main issues directly, while Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref posted online that controlling the Strait of Hormuz is a right that belongs to the Iranian people. Analyst Danny Citrinowicz from the Institute for National Security Studies reported that Iran is acting like it has won the war, which is not the attitude of a country prepared to compromise (P.B.S. NewsHour). Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group was more cautious, stating the most likely outcome is not a return to full war, but a stretch of pressure and a last-minute struggle to keep things from erupting altogether.
Pakistan’s attempt to facilitate a concrete plan is an integral development that deserves acknowledgement. A two-step approach focuses on stopping the violence before addressing the deeper political issues driving the conflict and creating an adequate proposal to address it. But this framework can only be as meaningful as the commitment of both sides, and what the international community has seen so far raises serious concern. According to B.B.C. News, Kuwait was struck by dozens of Iranian drones while the ceasefire was supposed to be active, damaging power plants and oil facilities. Additionally, President Trump’s social media posts warning of civilizations being destroyed overnight do not create the conditions needed for genuine diplomacy. The motivating force behind these talks should be a real commitment to ending the suffering this war has caused, which does not align with the rhetoric we’ve seen. Real peace requires both sides to approach the table with integrity and a willingness to mediate the conflict.
The war started on February 28, 2026, when the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes on Iran in order to take out its nuclear and missile programs and cut off its support for armed groups. Iran hit back by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, the route for about one-fifth of the world’s oil, which sent fuel prices up and shook markets around the world (P.B.S. NewsHour). After Pakistan’s intervention with the first ceasefire, the U.S. entered talks with a 15-point plan asking that Iran give up its weapons programs and reopen the strait. Iran responded with its own 10-point plan requesting control of the strait, an end to attacks on its allies, and money to cover the damages from the war (Reuters). After 21 hours of discussion, neither side conceded much.
With April 22 approaching fast and no new talks scheduled, the space for a lasting and peace-centered deal is diminishing. According to P.B.S. NewsHour, Trump has threatened a U.S. Naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz if nothing gets resolved. This would make matters worse not only for Iran and the U.S., but also for everyone else who depends on that waterway. Pakistan has stated that it will keep trying to bring both countries back to the table, but so far, neither Washington nor Tehran has responded. The Pakistani plan offers an opportunity for both sides to work towards a peaceful resolution. The question remains if they will act on it.